FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 93468. December 29, 1994.]

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNIONS (NATU) —

REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK SUPERVISORS CHAPTER,
petitioner, v s . HON. RUBEN D. TORRES, SECRETARY OF
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT and REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK ,
respondents.

DECISION

BELLOSILLO, J : p

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNIONS (NATU) — REPUBLIC

PLANTERS BANK SUPERVISORS CHAPTER seeks nullification of the decision
of public respondent Secretary of Labor dated 23 March 1990, which
modified the order of Med-Arbiter Manases T. Cruz dated 17 August 1989 as
well as his order dated 20 April 1990 denying reconsideration.
On 17 March 1989, NATU filed a petition for certification election to
determine the exclusive bargaining representative of respondent Bank's
employees occupying supervisory positions. On 24 April 1989, the Bank
moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the supposed supervisory
employees were actually managerial and/or confidential employees thus
ineligible to join, assist or form a union, and that the petition lacked the 20%
signatory requirement under the Labor Code.
On 17 August 1989, Med-Arbiter Manases T. Cruz granted the petition
thus —
WHEREFORE . . . let a certification election be ordered conducted
among all the regular employees of the Republic Planters Bank
occupying supervisory positions or the equivalent within 20 days from
receipt of a copy of this Order. The choice shall be: (1) National
Association of Trade Unions (NATU) — Republic Planters Bank
Supervisors Chapter; and (2) No Union.
The payroll three months prior to the filing of this petition shall
be utilized in determining the list of eligible voters . . . 1
Respondent Bank appealed the order to the Secretary of Labor on the
main ground that several of the employees sought to be included in the
certification election, particularly the Department Managers, Branch
Managers/OICs, Cashiers and Controllers were managerial and/or confidential
employees and thus ineligible to join, assist or form a union. It presented
annexes detailing the job description and duties of the positions in question
and affidavits of certain employees. It also invoked provisions of the General
Banking Act and the Central Bank Act to show the duties and responsibilities
of the bank and its branches.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 On 23 March 1990, public respondent issued a decision partially
granting the appeal, which is now being challenged before us —
WHEREFORE . . . the appeal is hereby partially granted.
Accordingly, the Order dated 17 August 1989 is modified to the extent
that Department Managers, Assistant Managers, Branch Managers,
Cashiers and Controllers are declared managerial employees. Perforce,
they cannot join the union of supervisors such as Division Chiefs,
Accounts Officers, Staff Assistants and OIC's (sic) unless the latter are
regular managerial employees . . . 2
NATU filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied on 20
April 1990. 3 Hence this recourse assailing public respondent for rendering
the decision of 23 March 1990 and the order of 20 April 1990 both with
grave abuse of discretion.
The crucial issue presented for our resolution is whether the
Department Managers, Assistant Managers, Branch Managers/OICs, Cashiers
and Controllers of respondent Bank are managerial and/or confidential
employees hence ineligible to join or assist the union of petitioner.
NATU submits that an analysis of the decision of public respondent
readily yields certain flaws that result in erroneous conclusions. Firstly, a
branch does not enjoy relative autonomy precisely because it is treated as
one unit with the head office and has to comply with uniform policies and
guidelines set by the bank itself. It would be absurd if each branch of a
particular bank would be adopting and implementing different policies
covering multifarious banking transactions. Moreover, respondent Bank's
own evidence clearly shows that policies and guidelines covering the various
branches are set by the head office. Secondly, there is absolutely no
evidence showing that bank policies are laid down through the collective
action of the Branch Manager, the Cashier and the Controller. Thirdly, the
organizational setup where the Branch Manager exercises control over
branch operations, the Controller controls the Accounting Division, and the
Cashier controls the Cash Division, is nothing but a proper delineation of
duties and responsibilities. This delineation is a Central Bank prescribed
internal control measure intended to objectively establish responsibilities
among the officers to easily pinpoint culpability in case of error. The "dual
control" and "joint custody" aspects mentioned in the decision of public
respondent are likewise internal control measures prescribed by the Central
Bank.
Neither is there evidence showing that subject employees are vested
with powers or prerogatives to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall,
discharge, assign or discipline employees. The bare allegations in the
affidavits of respondent Bank's Executive Assistant to the President 4 and the
Senior Manager of the Human Resource Management Department 5 that
those powers and prerogatives are inherent in subject positions are self-
serving. Their claim cannot be made to prevail upon the actual duties and
responsibilities of subject employees.
The other evidence of respondent Bank which purports to show that
subject employees exercise managerial functions even belies such claim.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Insofar as Department Managers and Assistant Managers are concerned,
there is absolutely no reason mentioned in the decision why they are
managerial employees. Not even respondent Bank in its appeal questioned
the inclusion of Assistant Managers among the qualified petitioning
employees. Public respondent has deviated from the real issue in this case,
which is, the determination of whether subject employees are managerial
employees within the contemplation of the Labor Code, as amended by RA
6715; instead, he merely concentrated on the nature, conduct and
management of banks conformably with the General Banking Act and the
Central Bank Act.
Petitioner concludes that subject employees are not managerial
employees but supervisors. Even assuming that they are confidential
employees, there is no legal prohibition against confidential employees who
are not performing managerial functions to form and join a union.
On the other hand, respondent Bank maintains that the Department
Managers, Branch Managers, Cashiers and Controllers are inherently
possessed of the powers enumerated in Art. 212, par. (m), of the Labor
Code. It relies heavily on the affidavits of its Executive Assistant to the
President and Senior Manager of the Human Resource Department. The
Branch Managers, Cashiers and Controllers are vested not only with policy-
making powers necessary to run the affairs of the branch, given the
independence and relative autonomy which it enjoys in the pursuit of its
goals and objectives, but also with the concomitant disciplinary authority
over the employees.
The Solicitor General argues that NATU loses sight of the fact that by
virtue of the appeal of respondent Bank, the whole case is thrown open for
consideration by public respondent. Even errors not assigned in the appeal,
such as the exclusion by the Med-Arbiter of Assistant Managers from the
managerial employees category, is within his discretion to consider as it is
closely related to the errors properly assigned. The fact that Department
Managers are managerial employees is borne out by the evidence of
petitioner itself. Furthermore, while it assails public respondent's finding that
subject employees are managerial employees, petitioner never questioned
the fact that said officers also occupy confidential positions and thus remain
prohibited from forming or joining any labor organization.
Respondent Bank has no legal personality to move for the dismissal of
the petition for certification election on the ground that its supervisory
employees are in reality managerial employees. An employer has no
standing to question the process since this is the sole concern of the
workers. The only exception is where the employer itself has to file the
petition pursuant to Art. 258 of the Labor Code because of a request to
bargain collectively. 6
Public respondent, invoking RA 6715 and the inherent functions of
Department Managers, Assistant Managers, Branch Managers, Cashiers and
Controllers, held that these officers properly fall within the definition of
managerial employees. The ratiocination in his Decision of 23 March 1990 7
is that —
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Republic Act No. 6715, otherwise known as the Herrera-Veloso
Law, restored the right of supervisors to form their own unions while
maintaining the proscription on the right to self-organization of
managerial employees. Accordingly, the Labor Code, as amended,
distinguishes managerial, supervisory and rank-and-file employees
thus:
Art. 212 (m) — Managerial employee is one who is vested
with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute
management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off,
recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees. Supervisory
employees are those who, in the interest of the employer,
effectively recommend such managerial actions, if the exercise
of such managerial authority is not routinary in nature but
requires the use of independent judgment. All employees not
falling within any of the above definitions are considered rank-
and-file employees (emphasis supplied).
At first glance, pursuant to the above-definitions and based on
their job descriptions as guideposts, there would seem to be no
difficulty in distinguishing a managerial employee from that of a
supervisor, or from that of a mere rank-and-file employee. Yet, this
task takes on a different dimension when applied to banks, particularly
the branches thereof. This is so because unlike ordinary corporations, a
bank's organizational operation is governed and regulated by the
General Banking Act and the Central Bank Act, both special laws . . .
As pointed out by the respondent, in the banking industry, a
branch is the microcosm of a banking institution, uniquely autonomous
and self-governing.
This relative autonomy of a branch finds legal basis in Section 27
of the General Banking Act, as amended, thus:
. . . The bank shall be responsible for all business
conducted in such branches to the same extent and in the same
manner as though such business had all been conducted in the
head office.
For the purpose of this Act, a bank and its branches shall
be treated as a unit (emphasis supplied).
Conformably with the above, bank policies are laid down and/or
executed through the collective action of the Branch Manager, Cashier
and Controller at the branch level. The Branch Manager exercises over-
all control and supervision over branch operation being on the top of
the branch's pyramid structure. However, both the controller and the
cashier who are called in banking parlance as 'Financial Managers' due
to their fiscal functions are given such a share and sphere of
responsibility in the operations of the bank. The cashier controls and
supervises the cash division while the controller that of the Accounting
Division. Likewise, their assigned task is of great significance, without
which a bank or branch for that matter cannot operate or function.
Through the collective action of these three branch officers
operational transactions are carried out like: The two (2)-signature
requirement of the manager, on one hand, and that of the controller or
cashier on the other hand as required in bank's issuances and releases.
This is the so-called 'dual control' through check-and-balance as
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 prescribed by the Central Bank, per Section 1166.6, Book I, Manual of
Regulations for Banks and Financial Intermediaries. Another is in the
joint custody of the branch's cash in vault, accountable forms,
collaterals, documents of title, deposit, ledgers and others, among the
branch manager and at least two (2) officers of the branch as required
under Section 1166.6 of the Manual of Regulations for Banks and Other
Financial Intermediaries.
This structural set-up creates a triad of managerial authority
among the branch manager, cashier and controller. Hence, no officer of
the bank '. . . have (sic) complete authority and responsibility for
handling all phases of any transaction from beginning to end without
some control or balance from some other part of the organization'
(Section 1166.3, Division of Duties and Responsibilities, Ibid). This
aspect in the banking system which calls for the division of duties and
responsibilities is a clear manifestation of managerial power and
authority. No operational transaction at branch level is carried out by
the singular act of the Branch Manager but rather through the
collective act of the Branch Manager, Cashier/Controller (emphasis
supplied).
Noteworthy is the 'on call client' set up in banks. Under this
scheme, the branch manager is tasked with the responsibility of
business development and marketing of the bank's services which
place him on client call. During such usual physical absences from the
branch, the cashier assumes the reins of branch control and
administration. On those occasions, the 'dual control system' is clearly
manifest in the transactions and operations of the branch bank as it will
then require the necessary joint action of the controller and the
cashier.
The grave abuse of discretion committed by public respondent is at
once apparent. Art. 212, par. (m), of the Labor Code is explicit. A managerial
employee is (a) one who is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down
and execute management policies, or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off,
recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees; or (b) one who is vested
with both powers or prerogatives. A supervisory employee is different from a
managerial employee in the sense that the supervisory employee, in the
interest of the employer, effectively recommends such managerial actions, if
the exercise of such managerial authority is not routinary in nature but
requires the use of independent judgment.
Ranged against these definitions and after a thorough examination of
the evidence submitted by both parties, we arrive at a contrary conclusion.
Branch Managers, Cashiers and Controllers of respondent Bank are not
managerial employees but supervisory employees. The finding of public
respondent that bank policies are laid down and/or executed through the
collective action of these employees is simply erroneous. His discussion on
the division of their duties and responsibilities does not logically lead to the
conclusion that they are managerial employees, as the term is defined in Art.
212, par. (m).
Among the general duties and responsibilities of a Branch Manager is "
[t]o discharge his duties and authority with a high sense of responsibility and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 integrity and shall at all times be guided by prudence like a good father of
the family, and sound judgment in accordance with and within the limitations
of the policy/policies promulgated by the Board of Directors and
implemented by the Management until suspended, superseded, revoked or
modified" (par. 5, emphasis supplied). 8 Similarly, the job summary of a
Controller states: "Supervises the Accounting Unit of the branch; sees to the
compliance by the Branch with established procedures, policies, rules and
regulations of the Bank and external supervising authorities; sees to the
strict implementation of control procedures (emphasis supplied). 9 The job
description of a Cashier does not mention any authority on his part to lay
down policies, either. 10 On the basis of the foregoing evidence, it is clear
that subject employees do not participate in policy-making but are given
approved and established policies to execute and standard practices to
observe, 11 leaving little or no discretion at all whether to implement said
policies or not. 12 It is the nature of the employee's functions, and not the
nomenclature or title given to his job, which determines whether he has
rank-and-file, supervisory or managerial status. 13
Moreover, the bare statement in the affidavit of the Executive Assistant
to the President of respondent Bank that the Branch Managers, Cashiers and
Controllers "formulate and implement the plans, policies and marketing
strategies of the branch towards the successful accomplishment of its profit
targets and objectives," 14 is contradicted by the following evidence
submitted by respondent Bank itself:
(a) Memorandum issued by respondent Bank's Assistant Vice
President to all Regional Managers and Branch Managers giving them
temporary discretionary authority to grant additional interest over the
prescribed board rates for both short-term and long-term CTDs subject,
however, to specific limitations and guidelines set forth in the same
memorandum; 15
(b) Memorandum issued by respondent Bank's Executive Vice
President to all Regional Managers and Branch Officers regarding the
policy and guidelines on drawing against uncollected deposits (DAUD);
16

(c) Memorandum issued by respondent Bank's President to all

Field Offices regarding the guidelines on domestic bills purchased
(DBP); 17 and
(d) Memorandum issued by the same officer to all Branch
Managers regarding lending authority at the branch level and the
terms and conditions thereof. 18
As a consequence, the affidavit of the Executive Assistant cannot be given
any weight at all.
Neither do the Branch Managers, Cashiers and Controllers have the
power to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, discharge, assign or
discipline employees. The Senior Manager of the Human Resource
Management Department of respondent Bank, in her affidavit, stated that
"the power to hire, fire, suspend, transfer, assign or otherwise impose
discipline among subordinates within their respective jurisdictions is lodged
with the heads of the various departments, the branch managers and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 officers-in-charge, the branch cashiers and the branch controllers. Inherent
as it is in the aforementioned positions, the authority to hire, fire, suspend,
transfer, assign or otherwise discipline employees within their respective
domains was deemed unnecessary to be incorporated in their individual job
descriptions; By way of illustration, on August 24, 1989, Mr. Renato A.
Tuates, the Officer-in-Charge/Branch Cashier of the Bank's Dumaguete
Branch, placed under preventive suspension and thereafter terminated the
teller of the same branch . . . Likewise, on February 22, 1989, Mr. Francis D.
Robite, Sr., the Officer-in-Charge of International Department, assigned the
cable assistant of the International Department as the concurrent FCDU
Accountable Forms Custodian." 19
However, a close scrutiny of the memorandum of Mr. Tuates reveals
that he does not have said managerial power because as plainly stated
therein, it was issued "upon instruction from Head Office." 20 With regard to
the memorandum of Mr. Robite, Sr., it appears that the power he exercised
was merely in an isolated instance, taking into account the other evidence
submitted by respondent Bank itself showing lack of said power by other
Branch Managers/OICs:
(a) Memorandum from the Branch Manager for the AVP —
Manpower Management Department expressing the opinion that a
certain employee, due to habitual absenteeism and tardiness, must be
penalized in accordance with respondent Bank's Code of Discipline;
and
(b) Memorandum from a Branch OIC for the Assistant Vice
President recommending a certain employee's promotional adjustment
to the present position he occupies.
Clearly, those officials or employees possess only recommendatory powers
subject to evaluation, review and final action by higher officials. Therefore,
the foregoing affidavit cannot bolster the stand of respondent Bank.
The positions of Department Managers and Assistant Managers were
also declared by public respondent as managerial, without providing any
basis therefor. Petitioner asserts that the position of Assistant Manager was
not even included in the appeal filed by respondent Bank. While we agree
with the Office of the Solicitor General that it is within the discretion of public
respondent to consider an unassigned issue that is closely related to an
issue properly assigned, still, public respondent's error lies in the fact that
his finding has no leg to stand on. Anyway, inasmuch as the entire records
are before us, now is the opportunity to discuss this issue.
We analyzed the evidence submitted by respondent Bank in support of
its claim that Department Managers are managerial employees 21 and
concluded that they are not. Like Branch Managers, Cashiers and Controllers,
Department Managers do not possess the power to lay down policies nor to
hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline
employees. They occupy supervisory positions, charged with the duty among
others to "recommend proposals to improve and streamline operations." 22
With respect to Assistant Managers, there is absolutely no evidence
submitted to substantiate public respondent's finding that they are
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 managerial employees; understandably so, because this position is not
included in the appeal of respondent Bank.
As regards the other claim of respondent Bank that Branch
Managers/OICs, Cashiers and Controllers are confidential employees, having
control, custody and/or access to confidential matters, e.g., the branch's
cash position, statements of financial condition, vault combination, cash
codes for telegraphic transfers, demand drafts and other negotiable
instruments, 23 pursuant to Sec. 1166.4 of the Central Bank Manual
regarding joint custody, 24 this claim is not even disputed by petitioner. A
confidential employee is one entrusted with confidence on delicate matters,
or with the custody, handling, or care and protection of the employer's
property. 25 While Art. 245 of the Labor Code singles out managerial
employees as ineligible to join, assist or form any labor organization, under
the doctrine of necessary implication, confidential employees are similarly
disqualified. This doctrine states that what is implied in a statute is as much
a part thereof as that which is expressed, as elucidated in several cases 26
the latest of which is Chua v. Civil Service Commission 27 where we said:
No statute can be enacted that can provide all the details
involved in its application. There is always an omission that may not
meet a particular situation. What is thought, at the time of enactment,
to be an all-embracing legislation may be inadequate to provide for the
unfolding events of the future. So-called gaps in the law develop as the
law is enforced. One of the rules of statutory construction used to fill in
the gap is the doctrine of necessary implication . . . Every statute is
understood, by implication, to contain all such provisions as may be
necessary to effectuate its object and purpose, or to make effective
rights, powers, privileges or jurisdiction which it grants, including all
such collateral and subsidiary consequences as may be fairly and
logically inferred from its terms. Ex necessitate legis . . .
In applying the doctrine of necessary implication, we took into
consideration the rationale behind the disqualification of managerial
employees expressed in Bulletin Publishing Corporation v. Sanchez, 28 thus:
". . . if these managerial employees would belong to or be affiliated with a
Union, the latter might not be assured of their loyalty to the Union in view of
evident conflict of interests. The Union can also become company-dominated
with the presence of managerial employees in Union membership." Stated
differently, in the collective bargaining process, managerial employees are
supposed to be on the side of the employer, to act as its representatives,
and to see to it that its interests are well protected. The employer is not
assured of such protection if these employees themselves are union
members. Collective bargaining in such a situation can become one-sided. 29
It is the same reason that impelled this Court to consider the position of
confidential employees as included in the disqualification found in Art. 245
as if the disqualification of confidential employees were written in the
provision. If confidential employees could unionize in order to bargain for
advantages for themselves, then they could be governed by their own
motives rather than the interest of the employers. Moreover, unionization of
confidential employees for the purpose of collective bargaining would mean
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 the extension of the law to persons or individuals who are supposed to act
"in the interest of" the employers. 30 It is not farfetched that in the course of
collective bargaining, they might jeopardize that interest which they are
duty-bound to protect. Along the same line of reasoning we held in Golden
Farms, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja 31 reiterated in Philips Industrial Development,
Inc. v. NLRC , 32 that "confidential employees such as accounting personnel,
radio and telegraph operators who, having access to confidential
information, may become the source of undue advantage. Said employee(s)
may act as spy or spies of either party to a collective bargaining
agreement."
In fine, only the Branch Managers/OICs, Cashiers and Controllers of
respondent Bank, being confidential employees, are disqualified from joining
or assisting petitioner Union, or joining, assisting or forming any other labor
organization. But this ruling should be understood to apply only to the
present case based on the evidence of the parties, as well as to those
similarly situated. It should not be understood in any way to apply to banks
in general.
WHEREFORE, the petition is partially GRANTED. The decision of public
respondent Secretary of Labor dated 23 March 1990 and his order dated 20
April 1990 are MODIFIED, hereby declaring that only the Branch
Managers/OICs, Cashiers and Controllers of respondent Republic Planters
Bank are ineligible to join or assist petitioner National Association of Trade
Unions (NATU) — Republic Planters Bank Supervisors Chapter, or join, assist
or form any other labor organization.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., Quiason and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions
PADILLA, J., concurring and dissenting:

I concur in the majority opinion's conclusion that respondent Bank's

Branch Managers/OICs, Cashiers and Controllers, being confidential
employees of the Bank, are disqualified from joining or assisting petitioner
labor union or joining, assisting or forming any other labor organization,
including a supervisor's union.
However, I dissent from its conclusion that respondent Bank's
Department Managers and Department Assistant Managers are not
disqualified from joining a labor union including a supervisors' union. My
years of experience in the banking industry (perhaps irrelevant to this case)
have shown that positions of such Department Heads (Managers) are as
confidential, if not more, than the position of Branch Managers. In fact, most
of such Department Heads are Vice-Presidents of the Bank, which
underscores their status both as managerial employees and confidential
personnel of the Bank. It would be incongruous for a Department Manager
who, as already stated, is usually a Vice-President, to be a member of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 same labor organization as his messenger or supervisory account
executives. It would be even more untenable and dangerous for a
Department Manager who usually is a Vice-President, being a member of a
labor union, to be designated a union representative for purposes of
collective bargaining with the management of which he is a part. I think the
public respondent is correct in disqualifying from membership in a labor
union of supervisors, those who are Department Managers and Assistant
Managers.
I, therefore, vote for the affirmance in toto of public respondent's
decision of 23 March 1990 and order of 20 April 1990.

Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 33.
2. Id., p. 28.
3. Id., pp. 18-19.
4. Id., pp. 103-106.
5. Id., pp. 112-113.
6. Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corporation v. Laguesma, G.R. No.
101730, 17 June 1993, 223 SCRA 452.
7. Decision of public respondent Secretary of Labor promulgated 23 March
1990, Annex "B," Petition; Rollo , pp. 24-26.

8. Records, p. 111.
9. Id., p. 94.
10. Id., pp. 91-92.
11. Franklin Baker Company of the Philippines v. Trajano, G.R. No. 75039, 28
January 1988, 157 SCRA 416.
12. Southern Philippines Federation of Labor (SPFL) v. Calleja, G.R. No. 80882,
24 April 1989, 172 SCRA 676.
13. See Batongbacal v. Associated Bank, G.R. No. 72977, 21 December 1988,
168 SCRA 600.
14. Records, pp. 249-250.
15. Rollo , pp. 201-203.
16. Id., pp. 204-205.
17. Id., pp. 206-207.
18. Id., p. 208.
19. Records, pp. 239-240.
20. Id., pp. 233-238.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 21. Records, pp. 112-115.
22. Rollo , p. 170.
23. Records, pp. 120-121.
24. Id., p. 265.
25. See Panday v. NLRC, G.R. No. 67664, 20 May 1992, 209 SCRA 122.

26. In re Dick, 38 Phil 41 [1918]; City of Manila v. Gomez, No. L-37251, 31

August 1981, 107 SCRA 98; Escribano v. Avila, No. L-30375, 12 September
1978, 85 SCRA 245; Go Chico v. Martinez, 45 Phil. 256 [1923]; Gatchalian v.
COMELEC, No. L-32560, 22 October 1970, 35 SCRA 435; People v. Uy Jui Pio,
102 Phil. 679 [1957]; People v. Aquino , 83 Phil. 614 [1949].
27. G.R. No. 88979, 7 February 1992, 206 SCRA 65, and cited cases therein.
28 G.R. No. 74425, 7 October 1986, 144 SCRA 628, 635.
29. Alcantara, Samson S., Philippine Labor and Social Legislation Annotated,
1991 Ed., p. 455.
30. Pascual, Crisolito, Labor Relations Law, 1986 ed., p. 159.
31. G.R. No. 78755, 19 July 1989, 175 SCRA 471.

32. G.R. No. 88957, 25 June 1992, 210 SCRA 339.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com